To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

E 1850.3 P643e 2007/08 c.1
State of Oklahoma
~.'.~~~. :.....Pilot Early Childhood Program
Community Action Proll.'Ct
I •• ••••
.. . ..... .. •••
YEAR 2 SUMMARY
INTRO
The number of children served through the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program during Year 2 increased by
more than 67% over Year 1. Total classrooms grew from 91 (June 2007) to 139 (June 2008) and more than 1,200 at-risk
children were served during the second year of operation. The early childhood education providers participating in this
program during Year 2 include 15 agencies operating in more than 20 communities across Oklahoma. Ten providers are
non-profits (seven of whom operate Early Head Start and/or Head Start programs), four providers are private/for-profits,
and one is a Tribal government.
• provider operations and eligibility,
• staffing,
• training, and
• program evaluation
Throughout Year 2 of the program, the 15 participating providers were monitored for compliance using the original goals as
stated by Community Action Project of Tulsa County, Inc., (CAPTe)in its proposal. These goals include improving the quality
of early education services provided in Oklahoma and expanding capacity to serve additional low-income children from
birth through age three by implementing high standards for:
During Year 1 of the Pilot Program, CAPTCfocused mainly on program implementation and standard compliance. At year-end
the two primary outcomes to report included: (1) implementation/growth at each program, and (2) compliance with
program requirements and expectations. The focus of Year 2 work shifted toward assessingprogram quality and developing
action plans for continuous program improvements. While monitoring compliance of all standard program requirements
continued during the year, a greater focus was placed on each provider's progress in raising the quality of their program.
Major components for improving quality throughout the program year included: continued training, staffing structure
improvements, developing and reaching professional development benchmarks, preparing for and meeting National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYe)accreditation requirements, and networking among providers to
gain knowledge from other similar programs.
As outlined in this report, the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program has achieved initial success. More young
children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality.
TRAINING
LEADERSHIP TRAINING
Sixty-three supervisors, managers, site directors, executive directors, mentor teachers and other supervisory staff attended
14 hours of Leadership Training. The focus of the Leadership Training, presented by WestEd Center for Child and Family
Studies, was to provide upper management and others responsible for directing operations and staff with an overview of
the fundamentals of the PITC(Program for Infant/Toddler Care) philosophy and the six essential policies: primary care,
small groups, continuity of care, individualized care, cultural responsiveness, and inclusion of children with special needs.
Tips on staffing for consistency and hiring practices were included. The Leadership Training emphasized the role of the
program leaders in assuring the implementation of the PITCprogram policy recommendations, as they support the work of
direct service staff.
INFANT/TODDLER CARE TRAINING
Forty-eight teachers and staff completed 48 hours of training (Modules I-IV) in the WestEd philosophy of responsive,
respectful, and relationship-based infant/toddler care. Approximately 100 additional staff participated in one or more
modules. Oklahoma PITCModules I-IV were presented roughly one month apart by Betty Blaize and Carol Aghayan of
2
Excellence for Children. Training was provided in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and each four module series was repeated in
both locations to accommodate staff hired later in the year.
Oklahoma PITCconsisted of the following:
• Module I: Social -Emotional Development
• Module II: Group Care& Environments
• Module III: Learning & Development
• Module IV: Cultures, Families, & Providers
Basedon the trainers' prior experience in the state, sessionswere specifically designed for Oklahoma caregivers/ teachers.
Additionally, to ensure effective transfer of child development knowledge to actual practice in centers, trainers used adult
learning techniques and allowed for individual learning styles. Overall feedback from Oklahoma PITCattendees was very
positive.
ADVANCED / CONTINUATION TRAINING
Thirty-five teachers and staff completed 28 hours of WestEd Continuation Training, comprised of Advanced Training I and II.
Approximately 60 additional staff participated in either part I or part II of the training. The training was provided by the
WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies and was presented in two separate two-day sessions (two days for part I and
two days for part II). Both parts were held once in Tulsa and again in Oklahoma City. The Continuation Training was
designed for teachers who had completed all four modules and provided an opportunity for participants to reflect and
expand on knowledge acquired through previous PITCtrainings, such as the implementation of PITe's six essential policies.
As requested by Year 1 feedback from attendees, this training also specifically addressed: serving children with disabilities
or other special needs and their families; and discipline and guidance, particularly for children with mental health issues.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Participating providers received classroom-based training and technical assistance.The purpose of technical assistance was
to support the PITCtraining received and to facilitate the translation of the PITC philosophy into practice. Providers
participating in the first year of the program were visited by Excellencefor Children technical assistance specialists. On-site
technical assistance for second year providers was delivered by WestEd infant/toddler specialists.
Both Excellence for Children and WestEd included the following in their approach to technical assistance: teacher-child
interactions and respectful, responsive, relationship-based care. Classroom staff also received information/assistance to
support their work earning or maintaining their NAEYCAccreditation. When appropriate, some Head Start/Early Head Start
Performance Standards were also discussed or focused on. First year sites were visited twice, with significantly enhanced
care noted in most second visits. Second year sites were visited three time throughout the year. All technical assistance
visits resulted in written reports which were shared with each provider and with CAPTe.
FAMILY SUPPORT TRAINING
Thirty family support staff and site management level staff attended a one-day seminar training provided by CAPTe.Family
Support Training was not included in the initial Year 2 training plan; however, several providers requested additional
guidance in this area and it was determined that a training event might be the best way to address all requests. Training
was led by staff from Family & Children's Services, CAPTe'spartner agency for the delivery of family supportive services.
The training was held in Tulsa and included topics such as building relationships with families, community partnerships,
family assessments, resource and referral ideas, time management skills for staff and documentation and confidentiality. A
good amount of time was also allowed for questions and answers.
Evaluation forms were provided and responses from attendees indicated that (1) participants felt the training was very
useful and informative, and (2) they had a better sense of direction in terms of the role family supportive services plays in
the Pilot Program. Information shared through the training drew largely from the services provided through F&CS/CAPTC;
however, much emphasis was placed on the fact that each program should provide family supportive services based on the
needs of families in their area/communities. The training also gave attendees the opportunity to network with peers from
acrossthe state with varying education, experience and knowledge.
3
BUDGET PLANNING MEETING
Another training added in Year 2 was a one-day financial meeting, which was held in late March. Much like family
supportive services, many questions had been posed about financial processes, therefore, a meeting was arranged to
address all requests at one time. With Year 3 financial information due soon, the main topics of the meeting included: Year
3 budgeting, application and invoicing processes.Two to three staff members from each provider group attended. Forms to
be used were presented to the group and completed sample forms were also provided. CAPTe'sController presented the
information and answered questions during and after the session.
OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT TRAINING
A total of 101 teachers and staff attended training sessionsin observation and assessment using the Creative Curriculum for
Infants/Toddlers and Two's web-based application. The three-day sessionswere offered in three locations to accommodate
statewide participants: Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Hugo. The training consisted of two full days of classroom instruction in
observation, assessment and the Developmental Continuum for Infants, Toddlers and Two's, and one-day of computer lab
instruction in CreativeCurriculum.net. Sessions/instructors were contracted through Teaching Strategies, Inc. The purpose
of the Observation and Assessment Training was to give staff entering data into CreativeCurriculum.net the direction
needed to use the tool and also to provide them with the education necessaryto make/enter child assessments. In addition
to these sessions, ongoing technical assistance was available through Pilot Program staff, and some programs
requested/received further on-site training.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
During Year 2, additional staff joined the Pilot Program team: a Project Assistant, a second Program Coordinator and a
Professional Development Coordinator. The Professional Development Coordinator and Program Coordinators had ongoing
contact with participating providers and were easily able to identify any concerns or needs. The Professional Development
Coordinator's role primarily focused on supporting providers with training, technical assistance and accreditation, while the
Program Coordinators' main responsibilities involved monitoring and compliance. In their different roles, they were able to
come together as a team to share information and better serve the providers using a multi-disciplinary approach. Because
all of the participating providers have unique strengths or obstacles, this approach allowed the team to work with each at
the appropriate level and to focus on key components for improving quality.
Providers and Pilot Program staff worked together throughout the program year to add trainings, track participation at
required trainings, and to review and sometimes modify staffing patterns at provider locations. Pilot Program staff worked
with providers to establish professional development plans and linked programs with resources to assist with these plans.
Examples include: accessing the Scholars for Excellence in Child Care (Scholars Program), receiving CEUsfor PITCtraining
and other trainings, providing information and guidance for obtaining CDAs and Certificates of Mastery, referring to
technology centers for training needs, and encouraging programs/staff to take advantage the various types of assistance
and services available through the Center for Early Childhood Professional Development (CECPD).
To assist with meeting yearly participation requirements for obtaining NAEYCaccreditation, providers received on-site
technical assistance from the Professional Development Coordinator. Technical assistance and referrals to area child care
resource and referral centers resulted in visible progress. Providers are working through the application process, creating
portfolios, and making program improvements. Eachis on target to obtain NAEYCaccreditation as scheduled.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
As grantee for the Pilot Program, CAPTC had dual goals for program evaluation: To inform continuous program
improvement and to document child and family outcomes. Consistent with these goals, CAPTCcollaborated with the Early
Childhood Education Institute at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, led by Diane M. Horm, Ph.D., to design and implement
evaluation for the program.
The resulting evaluation plan is a three-phase, long-term program evaluation. This three-phase evaluation plan is designed
to answer three main questions:
• PhaseI: Are the participating providers meeting Pilot Program requirements and expectations?
4
• Phase II: What is the quality of the Pilot Program-funded classrooms?
• Phase III: What is the impact of the Pilot Program on children?
PHASE I
Phase I, implemented with Pilot Program sites starting in their first year of operation, documents program establishment
and growth. In essence, it answers the question: Are the Pilot Program sites meeting requirements and expectations?
As discussed previously, the number of classrooms and children served increased over the first two years of the Pilot
Program. It did, however, take longer than anticipated for new classrooms to open, but once open, classrooms were
typically fully enrolled. Conversations with providers revealed that the difficulty in opening classrooms tended to be due to
construction delays. In terms of staffing, there were four bachelor degreed lead teachers on average for every five
classrooms and the average family support worker had a caseload of 21 families; both of these measures show a higher
standard than required by the Pilot Program. Of the staff hired without an associate or bachelor degree, one-quarter did
not currently have a CDA and were required to obtain one within a year. This finding speaks to the difficulty in hiring
qualified staff already holding a CDA. Relative to professional development provided by the Pilot Program, information
collected for Phase I evaluation did show that teachers and other staff attended training as required.
PHASE II
The focus of Phase II evaluation, implemented with Pilot Program sites in their second year of operation, shifted toward
assessing program quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. The major question was:
What is the quality of Pilot Program-funded classrooms? Staff from the Ou-Tulsa Early Childhood Education Institute
randomly selected 46 of the 60 (77%) classrooms and administered the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised or
ITERS-R and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. A specially trained observer spent at least four hours of observation
time per classroom while administering these measures.
The ITERS-R has been widely used to assess the quality of group care for infants and toddlers. The instrument was used in
the 2006 Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, a rigorous random-assignment evaluation involving 3,001
children and families in 17 Early Head Start Programs. As noted in Table 1, Pilot Program ITERS-Rresults indicate the overall
level of quality was "good" (a rating of 5 is "good" quality), across the 46 Pilot Program classrooms observed. The overall
mean of 5, for Pilot Program classrooms is very similar to the mean found in the national Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project. Means ratings on five of the seven ITERS-R subscales indicate "good" to "excellent" quality for Pilot
Program classrooms. Two subscales, personal care routines and program structure, received mean ratings below 5 or
"good." Due to instrument design, lower means ratings in these two subscales (e.g. diapering, hand washing, and
playground time and supervision) are not unusual.
Table 1. Mean ITERS-Rscores for Pilot Program Classrooms
ITERS-R
5
8
6
4
2
o
5pace& Personal Listening Activities Interaction Program Parents Total
Furnishings Care &Talking 50=.70 50=.85 Structure & Staff Score
50=.82 Routines 50=.78 50=.70 50=.43 50=.33
50=.78
.46 Classrooms
The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale assesses the emotional tone, discipline style, and responsiveness of the caregiver.
Table 2 displays the results of the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale and these results show that staff were "sensitive" with
a rating of 3.69 on the 4-point scale. Staff were rated "not at all" harsh or detached, with mean scores of 1.17 and 1.35
respectively. Again, the mean rating of 3.69 on sensitivity is consistent with the means of 3.4 to 3.5 found in the classrooms
that participated in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project.
TABLE 2. Mean Arnett scores for Pilot Program Classrooms
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.51
0.5
o
ARNETT CAREGIVER-CHILD INTERACTION
SCALE
--- -----------
-~- '~--,-"
Sensitive
SD=.21
Harsh
SD=.25
Detached
SD=.27
46 Classrooms
Taken together, these two assessments suggest high program quality in the Pilot Program classrooms. After reviewing
results with the trained observer, the Pilot Program Professional Development Coordinator delivered feedback to the
observed sites that was based on their unique ITERS-Rand Arnett results. Site specific results will be used to inform future
technical assistance for each, and the overall results will also inform future professional development work throughout the
Pilot Program.
PHASE III
The Phase III evaluation component, added as Pilot Program sites enter into their third year funding and operation, will
examine the relation between child outcomes and specific programs characteristics. The Phase III evaluation will be a quasi-experimental
design using a comparison group methodology and random sampling.
The Pilot Early Childhood Program implemented in Oklahoma to expand and enhance services for infants and toddlers has
achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these
services are high-quality. Previous research has indicated that the quality and intensity of services similar to those delivered
in Oklahoma's Pilot Program are necessary to meaningfully impact child outcomes, both in the short and long term.
The Pilot Program includes an evaluation to assess classroom quality and child outcomes with the dual goal to improve
services and demonstrate efficacy. Evaluation is often neglected in educational and social service programs. But, it is
essential to strength programs and demonstrate efficacy. Also, it is often the key to initial, continued and additional
funding.
6
PROVIDERS: YEAR 2
YEARS PARTICIPATING
,
PROVIDER COMMUNITIES SERVED 2006-07 2007-08
Community Action Project of Tulsa County Sand Springs, Tulsa X X
Child Care Inc., Linwood Early Learning Center OKC X
Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah X
Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow, Catoosa, Pryor, X
Wagoner
Crossroads Youth & Family Services Lawton, Seminole X X
Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee X
Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa X
Kids'Ranch Broken Bow X
Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers, Hugo, Idabel X X
r-
Margaret Hudson Program Broken Arrow X
Play 'N Station Harrah X
- Sunbeam Family Services Oklahoma City X X
I----
Tri County Technology Center Child Development Center Bartlesville X
Turn the Page Enid X X
United Community Action Program Bristow, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, X X
Stillwater, Tulsa
8
9
COMPARISON: YEAR 1 & YEAR 2
YEAR-END DATA
• T ' •
Classroom Description End of Year 1 End of Year 2
Number of SPPClassrooms 90 139
Number of Expanded Classrooms 37 68
Number of Enhanced Classrooms 53 71
Number of Children Enrolled 720 1,204
Number of Children Enrolled in Expanded Classrooms 296 614
Number of Children Enrolled in Enhanced Classrooms 424 590
Number of Lead Teachers (BA degree) 71 105
Number of Teacher Assistants (AA degree) 36 53
Number of Classroom Aides (High School degree and CDA) 42 108
Number of Classroom Aides in process of acquiring CDAl 35 42
Number of Family Support Specialists (BA degree and caseload <50) 21 31
~.T',' ~~i~iA~;tgended - - . ' ..~ .....
.•••~ < ;
Advanced/ Continuation Training 2 -- 124
Leadership Training 50 63
Observation and Assessment Training 60 101
1 FORMAL REPORTING TOOL USED IN YEAR 1 DID NOT CAPTURE CLASSROOM AIDES IN PROCESS OF ACQUIRING CDAS. AS PERMITTED BY PROGRAM
GUIDELINES.
2 ATIENDANCE AT TULSA CONTINUATION TRAINING WAS LOWER THAN EXPECTED DUE TO ICE STORM.
10
11
BUDGET SUMMARY: YEAR 2 & YEAR 3
BUDGET SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3
; .... YEAR TWO YEAR THREE
, (Actual) (Budget)
"
Revenue
State Revenue -Pilot Program $10,000,000 $10,000,000
George Kaiser Family Foundation $12,210,925 $14,703,961
Chesapeake Corporation $500,000 $500,000
Tom Ward $500,000 $500,000
Samson Resources $300,000 $300,000
ClTGO -- $250,000
CDBG funds and NWA Loan $360,000 $2,609,000
Match- secured by participating providers $1,614,110 $1,093,064
Total Revenue $25,485,035 $29,956,025
Administrative Expenses
Wages and Benefits $524,260 $710,749
Miscellaneous $35,599 $33,681
Administrative Allocation $967,270 $1,386,736
I Total Administrative Expenses $1,527,129 $2,131,166
Operating Expenses
Wages and Benefits $4,675,483 $7,604,047
Facilities Expenses $662,314 $698,483
Supplies $658,636 $1,136,165
Educational Contracts $164,826 $172,800
Other Contracts $7,363,003 $9,360,303
Meals/Travel/Training $547,059 $752,599
Miscellaneous $120,837 $153,671
Capital and One-Time Expenses $9,765,748 $7,946,791
Total Operating Expenses $23,957,906 $27,824,859
Grand Total Expenses $25,485,035 $29,956,025
12
13
PROVIDERS: YEAR 3
YEAR 3 PROJECTED SERVICES
~;t'l'AI']i;J Fmmm:! l@mt!1~tll@'] ~1tlu;m Ltfil!'1~hli!l ~
- rnaIWI·l@iJ It'ItMjt']~~1 ItlXojtlm ItIXlhjjtl]~~1 ItlXUitlm - rm ••__ ,,_-"" _____ ~ _____
.-----~ - -- ----------
or-- - Community Action Project of Tulsa County 608 Tulsa 535
Sand Springs 73
Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah 16 Tahlequah 16
32
Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow 17 Broken Arrow 24
124 Catoosa 17 Catoosa 16
Pryor 25
--- .-- - Wagoner 25
Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee 32
32
---
Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa 16 Tulsa 17
33
Kids'Ranch Broken Bow 16 Broken Bow 17
33
- --
Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers 24
48 Hugo 12
---- -- Idabel 12
Margaret Hudson Program 24 Broken Arrow 24
--
Sunbeam Family Services OKC 32 OKC 8
168 OKC 128
0- -
Tri County Technology Center Child Bartlesville 16
Development Center 16
.-
Turn the Page Enid 32
32
--
United Community Action Program 133 Tulsa 16
Sand Springs 12
Sapulpa 49
Bristow 8
- Stillwater 48
-Union- Public Schools- 204 Tulsa 204
577 Enhanced 910 Expanded -- _ r'" • .~_ j ~--"-
1,487 Total Slots
14
1.5
·.

E 1850.3 P643e 2007/08 c.1
State of Oklahoma
~.'.~~~. :.....Pilot Early Childhood Program
Community Action Proll.'Ct
I •• ••••
.. . ..... .. •••
YEAR 2 SUMMARY
INTRO
The number of children served through the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program during Year 2 increased by
more than 67% over Year 1. Total classrooms grew from 91 (June 2007) to 139 (June 2008) and more than 1,200 at-risk
children were served during the second year of operation. The early childhood education providers participating in this
program during Year 2 include 15 agencies operating in more than 20 communities across Oklahoma. Ten providers are
non-profits (seven of whom operate Early Head Start and/or Head Start programs), four providers are private/for-profits,
and one is a Tribal government.
• provider operations and eligibility,
• staffing,
• training, and
• program evaluation
Throughout Year 2 of the program, the 15 participating providers were monitored for compliance using the original goals as
stated by Community Action Project of Tulsa County, Inc., (CAPTe)in its proposal. These goals include improving the quality
of early education services provided in Oklahoma and expanding capacity to serve additional low-income children from
birth through age three by implementing high standards for:
During Year 1 of the Pilot Program, CAPTCfocused mainly on program implementation and standard compliance. At year-end
the two primary outcomes to report included: (1) implementation/growth at each program, and (2) compliance with
program requirements and expectations. The focus of Year 2 work shifted toward assessingprogram quality and developing
action plans for continuous program improvements. While monitoring compliance of all standard program requirements
continued during the year, a greater focus was placed on each provider's progress in raising the quality of their program.
Major components for improving quality throughout the program year included: continued training, staffing structure
improvements, developing and reaching professional development benchmarks, preparing for and meeting National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYe)accreditation requirements, and networking among providers to
gain knowledge from other similar programs.
As outlined in this report, the State of Oklahoma Pilot Early Childhood Program has achieved initial success. More young
children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these services are high-quality.
TRAINING
LEADERSHIP TRAINING
Sixty-three supervisors, managers, site directors, executive directors, mentor teachers and other supervisory staff attended
14 hours of Leadership Training. The focus of the Leadership Training, presented by WestEd Center for Child and Family
Studies, was to provide upper management and others responsible for directing operations and staff with an overview of
the fundamentals of the PITC(Program for Infant/Toddler Care) philosophy and the six essential policies: primary care,
small groups, continuity of care, individualized care, cultural responsiveness, and inclusion of children with special needs.
Tips on staffing for consistency and hiring practices were included. The Leadership Training emphasized the role of the
program leaders in assuring the implementation of the PITCprogram policy recommendations, as they support the work of
direct service staff.
INFANT/TODDLER CARE TRAINING
Forty-eight teachers and staff completed 48 hours of training (Modules I-IV) in the WestEd philosophy of responsive,
respectful, and relationship-based infant/toddler care. Approximately 100 additional staff participated in one or more
modules. Oklahoma PITCModules I-IV were presented roughly one month apart by Betty Blaize and Carol Aghayan of
2
Excellence for Children. Training was provided in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and each four module series was repeated in
both locations to accommodate staff hired later in the year.
Oklahoma PITCconsisted of the following:
• Module I: Social -Emotional Development
• Module II: Group Care& Environments
• Module III: Learning & Development
• Module IV: Cultures, Families, & Providers
Basedon the trainers' prior experience in the state, sessionswere specifically designed for Oklahoma caregivers/ teachers.
Additionally, to ensure effective transfer of child development knowledge to actual practice in centers, trainers used adult
learning techniques and allowed for individual learning styles. Overall feedback from Oklahoma PITCattendees was very
positive.
ADVANCED / CONTINUATION TRAINING
Thirty-five teachers and staff completed 28 hours of WestEd Continuation Training, comprised of Advanced Training I and II.
Approximately 60 additional staff participated in either part I or part II of the training. The training was provided by the
WestEd Center for Child and Family Studies and was presented in two separate two-day sessions (two days for part I and
two days for part II). Both parts were held once in Tulsa and again in Oklahoma City. The Continuation Training was
designed for teachers who had completed all four modules and provided an opportunity for participants to reflect and
expand on knowledge acquired through previous PITCtrainings, such as the implementation of PITe's six essential policies.
As requested by Year 1 feedback from attendees, this training also specifically addressed: serving children with disabilities
or other special needs and their families; and discipline and guidance, particularly for children with mental health issues.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Participating providers received classroom-based training and technical assistance.The purpose of technical assistance was
to support the PITCtraining received and to facilitate the translation of the PITC philosophy into practice. Providers
participating in the first year of the program were visited by Excellencefor Children technical assistance specialists. On-site
technical assistance for second year providers was delivered by WestEd infant/toddler specialists.
Both Excellence for Children and WestEd included the following in their approach to technical assistance: teacher-child
interactions and respectful, responsive, relationship-based care. Classroom staff also received information/assistance to
support their work earning or maintaining their NAEYCAccreditation. When appropriate, some Head Start/Early Head Start
Performance Standards were also discussed or focused on. First year sites were visited twice, with significantly enhanced
care noted in most second visits. Second year sites were visited three time throughout the year. All technical assistance
visits resulted in written reports which were shared with each provider and with CAPTe.
FAMILY SUPPORT TRAINING
Thirty family support staff and site management level staff attended a one-day seminar training provided by CAPTe.Family
Support Training was not included in the initial Year 2 training plan; however, several providers requested additional
guidance in this area and it was determined that a training event might be the best way to address all requests. Training
was led by staff from Family & Children's Services, CAPTe'spartner agency for the delivery of family supportive services.
The training was held in Tulsa and included topics such as building relationships with families, community partnerships,
family assessments, resource and referral ideas, time management skills for staff and documentation and confidentiality. A
good amount of time was also allowed for questions and answers.
Evaluation forms were provided and responses from attendees indicated that (1) participants felt the training was very
useful and informative, and (2) they had a better sense of direction in terms of the role family supportive services plays in
the Pilot Program. Information shared through the training drew largely from the services provided through F&CS/CAPTC;
however, much emphasis was placed on the fact that each program should provide family supportive services based on the
needs of families in their area/communities. The training also gave attendees the opportunity to network with peers from
acrossthe state with varying education, experience and knowledge.
3
BUDGET PLANNING MEETING
Another training added in Year 2 was a one-day financial meeting, which was held in late March. Much like family
supportive services, many questions had been posed about financial processes, therefore, a meeting was arranged to
address all requests at one time. With Year 3 financial information due soon, the main topics of the meeting included: Year
3 budgeting, application and invoicing processes.Two to three staff members from each provider group attended. Forms to
be used were presented to the group and completed sample forms were also provided. CAPTe'sController presented the
information and answered questions during and after the session.
OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT TRAINING
A total of 101 teachers and staff attended training sessionsin observation and assessment using the Creative Curriculum for
Infants/Toddlers and Two's web-based application. The three-day sessionswere offered in three locations to accommodate
statewide participants: Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Hugo. The training consisted of two full days of classroom instruction in
observation, assessment and the Developmental Continuum for Infants, Toddlers and Two's, and one-day of computer lab
instruction in CreativeCurriculum.net. Sessions/instructors were contracted through Teaching Strategies, Inc. The purpose
of the Observation and Assessment Training was to give staff entering data into CreativeCurriculum.net the direction
needed to use the tool and also to provide them with the education necessaryto make/enter child assessments. In addition
to these sessions, ongoing technical assistance was available through Pilot Program staff, and some programs
requested/received further on-site training.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
During Year 2, additional staff joined the Pilot Program team: a Project Assistant, a second Program Coordinator and a
Professional Development Coordinator. The Professional Development Coordinator and Program Coordinators had ongoing
contact with participating providers and were easily able to identify any concerns or needs. The Professional Development
Coordinator's role primarily focused on supporting providers with training, technical assistance and accreditation, while the
Program Coordinators' main responsibilities involved monitoring and compliance. In their different roles, they were able to
come together as a team to share information and better serve the providers using a multi-disciplinary approach. Because
all of the participating providers have unique strengths or obstacles, this approach allowed the team to work with each at
the appropriate level and to focus on key components for improving quality.
Providers and Pilot Program staff worked together throughout the program year to add trainings, track participation at
required trainings, and to review and sometimes modify staffing patterns at provider locations. Pilot Program staff worked
with providers to establish professional development plans and linked programs with resources to assist with these plans.
Examples include: accessing the Scholars for Excellence in Child Care (Scholars Program), receiving CEUsfor PITCtraining
and other trainings, providing information and guidance for obtaining CDAs and Certificates of Mastery, referring to
technology centers for training needs, and encouraging programs/staff to take advantage the various types of assistance
and services available through the Center for Early Childhood Professional Development (CECPD).
To assist with meeting yearly participation requirements for obtaining NAEYCaccreditation, providers received on-site
technical assistance from the Professional Development Coordinator. Technical assistance and referrals to area child care
resource and referral centers resulted in visible progress. Providers are working through the application process, creating
portfolios, and making program improvements. Eachis on target to obtain NAEYCaccreditation as scheduled.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
As grantee for the Pilot Program, CAPTC had dual goals for program evaluation: To inform continuous program
improvement and to document child and family outcomes. Consistent with these goals, CAPTCcollaborated with the Early
Childhood Education Institute at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, led by Diane M. Horm, Ph.D., to design and implement
evaluation for the program.
The resulting evaluation plan is a three-phase, long-term program evaluation. This three-phase evaluation plan is designed
to answer three main questions:
• PhaseI: Are the participating providers meeting Pilot Program requirements and expectations?
4
• Phase II: What is the quality of the Pilot Program-funded classrooms?
• Phase III: What is the impact of the Pilot Program on children?
PHASE I
Phase I, implemented with Pilot Program sites starting in their first year of operation, documents program establishment
and growth. In essence, it answers the question: Are the Pilot Program sites meeting requirements and expectations?
As discussed previously, the number of classrooms and children served increased over the first two years of the Pilot
Program. It did, however, take longer than anticipated for new classrooms to open, but once open, classrooms were
typically fully enrolled. Conversations with providers revealed that the difficulty in opening classrooms tended to be due to
construction delays. In terms of staffing, there were four bachelor degreed lead teachers on average for every five
classrooms and the average family support worker had a caseload of 21 families; both of these measures show a higher
standard than required by the Pilot Program. Of the staff hired without an associate or bachelor degree, one-quarter did
not currently have a CDA and were required to obtain one within a year. This finding speaks to the difficulty in hiring
qualified staff already holding a CDA. Relative to professional development provided by the Pilot Program, information
collected for Phase I evaluation did show that teachers and other staff attended training as required.
PHASE II
The focus of Phase II evaluation, implemented with Pilot Program sites in their second year of operation, shifted toward
assessing program quality and developing action plans for continuous program improvements. The major question was:
What is the quality of Pilot Program-funded classrooms? Staff from the Ou-Tulsa Early Childhood Education Institute
randomly selected 46 of the 60 (77%) classrooms and administered the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised or
ITERS-R and the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale. A specially trained observer spent at least four hours of observation
time per classroom while administering these measures.
The ITERS-R has been widely used to assess the quality of group care for infants and toddlers. The instrument was used in
the 2006 Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project, a rigorous random-assignment evaluation involving 3,001
children and families in 17 Early Head Start Programs. As noted in Table 1, Pilot Program ITERS-Rresults indicate the overall
level of quality was "good" (a rating of 5 is "good" quality), across the 46 Pilot Program classrooms observed. The overall
mean of 5, for Pilot Program classrooms is very similar to the mean found in the national Early Head Start Research and
Evaluation Project. Means ratings on five of the seven ITERS-R subscales indicate "good" to "excellent" quality for Pilot
Program classrooms. Two subscales, personal care routines and program structure, received mean ratings below 5 or
"good." Due to instrument design, lower means ratings in these two subscales (e.g. diapering, hand washing, and
playground time and supervision) are not unusual.
Table 1. Mean ITERS-Rscores for Pilot Program Classrooms
ITERS-R
5
8
6
4
2
o
5pace& Personal Listening Activities Interaction Program Parents Total
Furnishings Care &Talking 50=.70 50=.85 Structure & Staff Score
50=.82 Routines 50=.78 50=.70 50=.43 50=.33
50=.78
.46 Classrooms
The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale assesses the emotional tone, discipline style, and responsiveness of the caregiver.
Table 2 displays the results of the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale and these results show that staff were "sensitive" with
a rating of 3.69 on the 4-point scale. Staff were rated "not at all" harsh or detached, with mean scores of 1.17 and 1.35
respectively. Again, the mean rating of 3.69 on sensitivity is consistent with the means of 3.4 to 3.5 found in the classrooms
that participated in the Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project.
TABLE 2. Mean Arnett scores for Pilot Program Classrooms
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.51
0.5
o
ARNETT CAREGIVER-CHILD INTERACTION
SCALE
--- -----------
-~- '~--,-"
Sensitive
SD=.21
Harsh
SD=.25
Detached
SD=.27
46 Classrooms
Taken together, these two assessments suggest high program quality in the Pilot Program classrooms. After reviewing
results with the trained observer, the Pilot Program Professional Development Coordinator delivered feedback to the
observed sites that was based on their unique ITERS-Rand Arnett results. Site specific results will be used to inform future
technical assistance for each, and the overall results will also inform future professional development work throughout the
Pilot Program.
PHASE III
The Phase III evaluation component, added as Pilot Program sites enter into their third year funding and operation, will
examine the relation between child outcomes and specific programs characteristics. The Phase III evaluation will be a quasi-experimental
design using a comparison group methodology and random sampling.
The Pilot Early Childhood Program implemented in Oklahoma to expand and enhance services for infants and toddlers has
achieved initial success. More young children are receiving services, and preliminary evaluation results suggest these
services are high-quality. Previous research has indicated that the quality and intensity of services similar to those delivered
in Oklahoma's Pilot Program are necessary to meaningfully impact child outcomes, both in the short and long term.
The Pilot Program includes an evaluation to assess classroom quality and child outcomes with the dual goal to improve
services and demonstrate efficacy. Evaluation is often neglected in educational and social service programs. But, it is
essential to strength programs and demonstrate efficacy. Also, it is often the key to initial, continued and additional
funding.
6
PROVIDERS: YEAR 2
YEARS PARTICIPATING
,
PROVIDER COMMUNITIES SERVED 2006-07 2007-08
Community Action Project of Tulsa County Sand Springs, Tulsa X X
Child Care Inc., Linwood Early Learning Center OKC X
Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah X
Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow, Catoosa, Pryor, X
Wagoner
Crossroads Youth & Family Services Lawton, Seminole X X
Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee X
Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa X
Kids'Ranch Broken Bow X
Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers, Hugo, Idabel X X
r-
Margaret Hudson Program Broken Arrow X
Play 'N Station Harrah X
- Sunbeam Family Services Oklahoma City X X
I----
Tri County Technology Center Child Development Center Bartlesville X
Turn the Page Enid X X
United Community Action Program Bristow, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, X X
Stillwater, Tulsa
8
9
COMPARISON: YEAR 1 & YEAR 2
YEAR-END DATA
• T ' •
Classroom Description End of Year 1 End of Year 2
Number of SPPClassrooms 90 139
Number of Expanded Classrooms 37 68
Number of Enhanced Classrooms 53 71
Number of Children Enrolled 720 1,204
Number of Children Enrolled in Expanded Classrooms 296 614
Number of Children Enrolled in Enhanced Classrooms 424 590
Number of Lead Teachers (BA degree) 71 105
Number of Teacher Assistants (AA degree) 36 53
Number of Classroom Aides (High School degree and CDA) 42 108
Number of Classroom Aides in process of acquiring CDAl 35 42
Number of Family Support Specialists (BA degree and caseload <50) 21 31
~.T',' ~~i~iA~;tgended - - . ' ..~ .....
.•••~ < ;
Advanced/ Continuation Training 2 -- 124
Leadership Training 50 63
Observation and Assessment Training 60 101
1 FORMAL REPORTING TOOL USED IN YEAR 1 DID NOT CAPTURE CLASSROOM AIDES IN PROCESS OF ACQUIRING CDAS. AS PERMITTED BY PROGRAM
GUIDELINES.
2 ATIENDANCE AT TULSA CONTINUATION TRAINING WAS LOWER THAN EXPECTED DUE TO ICE STORM.
10
11
BUDGET SUMMARY: YEAR 2 & YEAR 3
BUDGET SUMMARY FOR YEAR 2 AND YEAR 3
; .... YEAR TWO YEAR THREE
, (Actual) (Budget)
"
Revenue
State Revenue -Pilot Program $10,000,000 $10,000,000
George Kaiser Family Foundation $12,210,925 $14,703,961
Chesapeake Corporation $500,000 $500,000
Tom Ward $500,000 $500,000
Samson Resources $300,000 $300,000
ClTGO -- $250,000
CDBG funds and NWA Loan $360,000 $2,609,000
Match- secured by participating providers $1,614,110 $1,093,064
Total Revenue $25,485,035 $29,956,025
Administrative Expenses
Wages and Benefits $524,260 $710,749
Miscellaneous $35,599 $33,681
Administrative Allocation $967,270 $1,386,736
I Total Administrative Expenses $1,527,129 $2,131,166
Operating Expenses
Wages and Benefits $4,675,483 $7,604,047
Facilities Expenses $662,314 $698,483
Supplies $658,636 $1,136,165
Educational Contracts $164,826 $172,800
Other Contracts $7,363,003 $9,360,303
Meals/Travel/Training $547,059 $752,599
Miscellaneous $120,837 $153,671
Capital and One-Time Expenses $9,765,748 $7,946,791
Total Operating Expenses $23,957,906 $27,824,859
Grand Total Expenses $25,485,035 $29,956,025
12
13
PROVIDERS: YEAR 3
YEAR 3 PROJECTED SERVICES
~;t'l'AI']i;J Fmmm:! l@mt!1~tll@'] ~1tlu;m Ltfil!'1~hli!l ~
- rnaIWI·l@iJ It'ItMjt']~~1 ItlXojtlm ItIXlhjjtl]~~1 ItlXUitlm - rm ••__ ,,_-"" _____ ~ _____
.-----~ - -- ----------
or-- - Community Action Project of Tulsa County 608 Tulsa 535
Sand Springs 73
Cherokee Nation Child Development Center Tahlequah 16 Tahlequah 16
32
Community Action Resource & Development Broken Arrow 17 Broken Arrow 24
124 Catoosa 17 Catoosa 16
Pryor 25
--- .-- - Wagoner 25
Green Country Behavioral Health Services Muskogee 32
32
---
Hutcherson YMCA Tulsa 16 Tulsa 17
33
Kids'Ranch Broken Bow 16 Broken Bow 17
33
- --
Little Dixie Community Action Agency Antlers 24
48 Hugo 12
---- -- Idabel 12
Margaret Hudson Program 24 Broken Arrow 24
--
Sunbeam Family Services OKC 32 OKC 8
168 OKC 128
0- -
Tri County Technology Center Child Bartlesville 16
Development Center 16
.-
Turn the Page Enid 32
32
--
United Community Action Program 133 Tulsa 16
Sand Springs 12
Sapulpa 49
Bristow 8
- Stillwater 48
-Union- Public Schools- 204 Tulsa 204
577 Enhanced 910 Expanded -- _ r'" • .~_ j ~--"-
1,487 Total Slots
14
1.5
·.